HEMRAJ RATIRAM Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Ghare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kothari, AGP for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Shri Paliwal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. Other respondents have chosen not to appear though they are served. After hearing parties, I find that controversy needs to be decided finally. Accordingly "Rule" is made returnable forthwith. Service of Rule on other respondents is dispensed with.

(2.) In this writ petition, the Chairman of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Tirora, has challenged the proceedings and order dated 14-10-2008 by respondent No. 4 whereby said respondent has found that motion of no confidence has been carried against him on 14-10-2008 with requisite majority of not less than 2/3rd Members as per provisions of section 23 A of The Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as APMC Act).

(3.) The petitioner has been elected initially as Member of respondent No. 3 - APMC as per Gazette Notification dated 17-8-2005 along with 16 other Members and two ex-officio members. The further election to elect office bearers was conducted on 2-9-2005 and the petitioner has been elected as Chairman therein for a period of five years i.e. up to 1-9-2010. Respondents No. 5 to 14 before this Court are the members who moved a motion for no confidence as per provisions of section 23A of APMC Act and Collector, Gondia, i.e. respondent No. 1 convened a meeting on 14-10-2008 accordingly. The petitioner objected to said notice of meeting dated 3-10-2008 and submitted objection to the Collector on 7-10-2008. On 14-10-2008, he submitted a representation to the Presiding Officer (respondent No. 4 herein) pointing out that motion is required to be carried by not less than 2/3rd of total numbers of APMC and he pointed out that total number of members of respondent No. 3 - APMC is prescribed to be 18 and the said required 2/3rd strength works out to 12. He also mentioned in his representation that provisions of section 23A of the APMC Act do not contemplate 2/3rd of number of members present and voting in the meeting or then 2/3rd of number of existing strength of members of APMC. On said date total 15 members were entitled to vote as per scheme of section 13 of APMC Act. Total 12 members remained present for meeting on 14-10-2008. Out of them two were ex-officio members not entitled to vote and remaining 10 were entitled to vote. Out of these 10, nobody demanded vote by secret ballot and all voted in favour of the motion of no confidence. Thus, 10 members entitled to vote out of 15 voted against the petitioner and remaining 5 who were entitled to vote did not attend that meeting. Therefore, there was no vote in favour of the petitioner. As 10 constitutes 2/3 of 15, respondent No. 4 declared the motion as passed. In relation to representation of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 observed that he was unable to take any decision thereupon and the said decision will be taken at appropriate time.